Aliens cause global warming

[iNow]

...and suddenly we're back where we were three pages ago...

[Pangloss]

I wasn't going to say anything but I could hardly ignore being called out by name.

 

Do you think SkepticLance or myself are global warming deniers, iNow?

[iNow]

I wasn't going to say anything but I could hardly ignore being called out by name.

 

Do you think SkepticLance or myself are global warming deniers, iNow?

 

There are parallels, and both of your tactics wreak of denialism (as opposed to supported claims with evidence which holds up to scruitiny). I think you both accept that the global climate is changing, but I also think both of your approaches regarding cause and future impact are very politically skewed, and tend too frequently to be concerned with the politics instead of the data.

 

The cool thing is, in science, my opinion doesn't do shit. It's my data that supports my comments, not my gut feeling.

[jryan]

A small insert here. jryan says I am not doing a very good job on behalf of sceptics, and that is probably correct..

 

No no! I'm not sayin that at all. I am saying that the author of the "Skeptical Science" website isn't doing a good job shooting down skeptics. Sorry for the confusion!

[Pangloss]

You mean "reek"? Ok, I appreciate the direct answer, and I respect your opinion on it, and I won't even take major disagreement with its accuracy, at least insofar as it pertains to myself. That's beacuse I think ALL of us are influenced by our political opinions, and their influence on this ostensibly (but not really) scientific discussion was manifest before I opened my mouth.

 

But I agree that your data supports your general opinion. If you haven't received enough recognition of that fact, I'll happily address that by saying so. I guess the difference between you and I is that I think that having data support an opinion is not the same as having proof. And neither, apparently, does the IPCC.

 

My only point here has been that skepticism is part of science, not its enemy, and when you guys demonize people like myself and SkepticLance, the religious right just laughs and sits back and relaxes, watching us do their work for them. I just think we can do better than that, that's all.

 

You guys should EMBRACE SkepticLance, not bemoan the fact that his opinion "reeks". Shout his existence on our board from the highest mountaintop. Look at the skeptic we have in our midst, and how we listen to what he has to say! Look at how we answer him point by point, and acknowledge him when he's right, but make it clear when he's wrong! We know he's not Rush Limbaugh, he's something far more useful and important: An INTELLIGENT skeptic on global warming. That's an INCREDIBLY important thing. And look -- Global Warming STILL HOLDS UP! Holy cow!

 

But hey, maybe it's just me.

[iNow]

My only point here has been that skepticism is part of science, not its enemy, and when you guys demonize people like myself and SkepticLance, the religious right just laughs and sits back and relaxes, watching us do their work for them.

Show me precisely where I demonized anyone. Calling their conclusions false, asking for citations to support their positions, and analyzing available data is not demonization, so please show me exactly where I have done this as you claim.

[SkepticLance]

To Dak

 

Get this clear. I have siad it about 1000 times before and I am getting sick of having to repeat it.

 

I am NOT a global warming denier. I never deny good data. And the good data shows clearly that the world has been warming over the last 30 years at the rate of 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade, in spite of certain people trying to claim that is false. I also agree that the recent warming is due to human activity, and we need to do something about it.

 

However, it is also clear to me that there is now a global warming industry that depends on extreme catastrophist predictions to obtain the backing they need. Even Dr. Stephen Schneider, one of the worst, was forced in a TV interview to admit he was in the habit of exaggerating the consequences of global warming.

 

The psychology of that is very clear, as I detailed in my last post.

 

Another example was a recent article in New Scientist by Dr. James Hansen, who predicted sea level rises of 5 metres before 2100. What an exaggeration! Sea level is currently rising at 3 mm per year on average. To increase to the point where his outrageous prediction came true would require an incredible change in ice melting rate. It would, in fact, require a very large part of the ice on the land mass of Greenland or Antarctica to melt. Since the interior parts of both are actually building up ice, albeit to a minor extent, this seems highly unlikely.

 

It is nonsense like that which illustrates the principle of people getting together and reinforcing extreme views.

 

My thanks to Pangloss. I know he does not agree with everything I say, but he is that kind of rare individual with the integrity to stand up for what he knows is right, even despite minor disagreements.

 

I was quite disappointed to see that integrity lacking in others on this forum. When iNow was denying the rate of warming as I posted it, the silence from other people who knew damn well I was right, was very obvious. Good scientific integrity requires a person to stand up for the truth, even when they disagree with some of the positions of the person presenting that truth. Those who disagree with my position, if they have scientific integrity, should affirm the truth when I say it. Permitting a falsehood to stand shows a serious lack of integrity.

[iNow]

I was quite disappointed to see that integrity lacking in others on this forum. When iNow was denying the rate of warming as I posted it, the silence from other people who knew damn well I was right, was very obvious.

You too. Show me exactly where I did this. Asking for support is not denying anything. This has been explained to both you and Pangloss repeatedly. Just because you keep saying the same thing does not mean what you are saying is valid.

 

 

Two steps forward, two steps backward.

 

 

 

Good scientific integrity requires a person to stand up for the truth, even when they disagree with some of the positions of the person presenting that truth. Those who disagree with my position, if they have scientific integrity, should affirm the truth when I say it. Permitting a falsehood to stand shows a serious lack of integrity.

 

You ought to open a new thread for that. Your definition of good scientific inquiry seems lacking and a bit inaccurate, but this thread has been such a bastion of on topic posts that I request you open a new thread so we can dialog on this.

[Pangloss]

Show me precisely where I demonized anyone. Calling their conclusions false, asking for citations to support their positions, and analyzing available data is not demonization, so please show me exactly where I have done this as you claim.

 

The demonization word was mainly aimed at Dak for calling Lance a denier above. But I also think you do "soft" demonization in your efforts to step outside of the logical discussion (instead of just agreeing to disagree) by pointing out extremely debatable logical fallacies, and saying things like "You really just don't get it" or "Pangloss -- wow :doh:".

[Reaper]

And the good data shows clearly that the world has been warming over the last 30 years at the rate of 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade, in spite of certain people trying to claim that is false. I also agree that the recent warming is due to human activity, and we need to do something about it.

 

Political issues aside, is there any reason why you choose to limit the data set to 30 years? Because, as we have already demonstrated, the increase is NOT linear. The projections are based on the assumption that we will continue to pour in greenhouse gases at an exponential rate. And, if we keep doing that, then a prediction of ~3 C rise in global climate is not that unreasonable.

 

Another example was a recent article in New Scientist by Dr. James Hansen, who predicted sea level rises of 5 metres before 2100. What an exaggeration! Sea level is currently rising at 3 mm per year on average. To increase to the point where his outrageous prediction came true would require an incredible change in ice melting rate. It would, in fact, require a very large part of the ice on the land mass of Greenland or Antarctica to melt. Since the interior parts of both are actually building up ice, albeit to a minor extent, this seems highly unlikely.

 

Well, you are going to have to show us the data for this claim then, because as we keep saying this assumes an exponential rise. You have to remember that this is an increase in average global temperatures. What may seem like a small change could indeed cause some really bad weather patterns and catastrophic changes in local climates, especially since the change is happening within a very short time. I think someone mentioned before that if the average temperature decreased by 5 C, we would have an ice age.

[iNow]

The demonization word was mainly aimed at Dak for calling Lance a denier above. But I also think you do "soft" demonization in your efforts to step outside of the logical discussion (instead of just agreeing to disagree) by pointing out extremely debatable logical fallacies, and saying things like "You really just don't get it" or "Pangloss -- wow :doh:".

 

I take your point, but it was really more frustration than demonization. However, thank you for at least providing specifics. I do appreciate it.

 

 

 

For context, the comments referenced above were made here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=378943&post378943

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=378724&post378724

[SkepticLance]

To Lockheed, who asked why I chose to limit the data set to the last 30 years.

 

 

 

The last 30 years represent a simple case. We have steady CO2 increase and steady temperature increase with no other significant factors involved. If we look further back in time, the situation becomes more complex and the cause/effect relationships become more debatable.

 

For example, the period 1941 to 1976 represents a period in which the net result is a 0.2 C cooling as global average. To talk about this period as global warming is literally incorrect, as it was, overall, a period of global cooling.

 

Before that period, things are also much less clear cut than the last 30 years. 1880 to 1910 is another period of global cooling, while 1910 to 1940 saw a global average temperature increase of 0.4 C. Since the CO2 increase for the cooling 30 years is very similar to the CO2 increase for the warming 30 years, the cause and effect relationship is also unclear. What is obvious is that factors other than CO2 increase were having a very potent effect.

 

Thus, I accept the recent warming as being the clear cut case, where anthropogenic greenhouse gases drive global warming. Before that, such claims become moot.

 

Lockheed said

 

"Well, you are going to have to show us the data for this claim then, because as we keep saying this assumes an exponential rise. "

 

Can you specify? My claim or Hansen's?

 

If you assume an exponential increase in sea level rise, then it is one hell of a kicker to meet Hansen's claim. Currently 3 mm per year. If that doubled, we would still see only 60 cm rise in 100 years. Hansen claimed 5 metres by the year 2100. This would be the exponential rise to beat them all.

[Dak]

Nonsense, he didn't say that it was a "mass shared delusion", you put those words in his mouth. There's a huge difference between that and political correctness. And he's not a "denier" -- you're just labelling him one for your convenience. His many statements on GW directly contradict this, so you're just calling him a liar in a pretty way.

 

'mass shared dilusion' was a rewording, but that's how rediculous it was. bear in mind that SL doesn't think that GW science has got it right, so that pretty much equates to 'science has gotten a bit carried away with the whole GW thing and gorne silly'. which is daft however you word it.

 

i've no idea where 'political correctness' comes into it.

 

Because what he said above is what I've been saying all along, that just because one member doesn't prove a point doesn't mean that point cannot be made. You people dance about like you've actually accomplished science, and even make that claim directly, when in fact what you've done is win a political debate, which is a completely different thing.

 

That is a valid point, even if he is 100% wrong about its application, and you should acknowledge that and find the common ground we all agree on, instead of consistently browbeating and chastising and otherwise ostracizing this member for having such a politically incorrect opinion about something you're no more capable of PROVING than he is.

 

pangloss, this is a science site. for discussing science. at the end of the day, science trumps non-science. no one is obliged to actually have any qualifications in science to post here, but if it can be shown that what you're saying is scientifically unsupported -- and, in fact, science states that the exact opposite is the case -- then do you not think, on a science site, you should actually acknowledge that science may in actual fact be onto something and that you may be wrong.

 

hence all the requests for citations and the annoyance when SL refused and merely repeated his unsupported claims, trying to extrapolate future trends as if current warming were linear dispite the fact that you will not find a single scientific source treating GW as if it were a linear trend, because it's not.

 

My only point here has been that skepticism is part of science, not its enemy, and when you guys demonize people like myself and SkepticLance, the religious right just laughs and sits back and relaxes, watching us do their work for them. I just think we can do better than that, that's all.

 

You guys should EMBRACE SkepticLance, not bemoan the fact that his opinion "reeks". Shout his existence on our board from the highest mountaintop. Look at the skeptic we have in our midst, and how we listen to what he has to say! Look at how we answer him point by point, and acknowledge him when he's right, but make it clear when he's wrong! We know he's not Rush Limbaugh, he's something far more useful and important: An INTELLIGENT skeptic on global warming. That's an INCREDIBLY important thing. And look -- Global Warming STILL HOLDS UP! Holy cow!

 

the thing is tho that skeptisism is still based on evidence and reason. if, for example, someone points out that you're making a fundamental mistake, you should correct that, not simply repeat it ad nausium. you should consider all POV and try to figure out which is more valid, not accept the fringe oppinions whilst rejecting mainstream oppinions.

 

I am NOT a global warming denier. I never deny good data. And the good data shows clearly that the world has been warming over the last 30 years at the rate of 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade, in spite of certain people trying to claim that is false. I also agree that the recent warming is due to human activity, and we need to do something about it.

 

However, it is also clear to me that there is now a global warming industry that depends on extreme catastrophist predictions to obtain the backing they need. Even Dr. Stephen Schneider, one of the worst, was forced in a TV interview to admit he was in the habit of exaggerating the consequences of global warming.

 

The psychology of that is very clear, as I detailed in my last post.

 

so? theres a huge industry around medicine, does that mean that medical science is prone to over-exaggeration?

 

sure, it may get misrepresented often by those who stand to profit, and certain things may be more likely to get funding for political reasons, but medical science itself is still reliable.

 

by all means be skeptical of what politicians etc. say about GW, but do you not think that things like the IPCC report are, at least, our best understanding?

 

the data may show that the average warming over the last 30 years is xC per decade, but you get a different number if you look over the last 10, 50, whatever years. the data also clearly shows that the increase in temperature is non-linear. you seem to have ignored the fact that simply averaging out the last 30 years isn't very accurate, ignored the fact that the increase is non-linear, and gone and extrapolated the average over the last 30 years as if it were linear in order to 'refute' accepted scientific projections of future temperature increase.

 

if you wonder why you get treated as a denyer rather than a skeptic, there it is. skeptics don't cherry-pick data and ignore critisism, denyers do.

[bombus]

To bombus

 

The term 'habitat loss' is very vague. This is inevitable, because of the context. If you want a scientifically exact definition, you are going to be disappointed. However, the English word 'loss' means something is gone. If I say that I have lost something, I mean it is totally gone. If I lose a page from a book, I do not say the book is lost. I say the book is lost only if the whole book is lost.

 

In the same way, to say a habitat is lost when only a small change has occurred is simply incorrect.

 

Well in that case it is scientifically meaningless as you cannot draw a line to say what counts as loss and what does not. So from now on, lets not bother using it and say Habitat Change instead, which can be put on a scale.

 

You said ;

 

" How could Panda's survive without their bamboo forests? How could mountain Gorillas survive without their habitats? How could tigers survive without thier forests?"

 

These are genuine examples of habitat loss, since you are talking about the loss of the entire habitat. The reason the loss of a forest does not result in the extinction of the tiger is simply that there are other forests. That is why habitat loss rarely, by itself, leads to extinction.

 

What other forests are these then? Most are not connected, so the tigers could not just move from one to another. If there was not massive conservation effort ongoing NOW tigers would be gone in the next ten years due primarily to habitat loss due to human encroachment.

 

I agree that if ALL forests in the world were lost, the tiger would go extinct. You may care to ask yourself how probable that is. Therefore, how likely that habitat loss leads to to extinction.

 

The forest at the back of my house could not support tigers! How would they ever get there? It is actually very possible that all tiger-supporting forests could disappear within the century, and a certainty if conservation effort ceased.

 

You also said

 

"I can't understand why you would rather take the word of a capitalist statitician who has an interest in denying environmental problems"

 

If you read the preamble to Lomborg's book, you will see that he began his researches in an attempt to prove the greenies correct. Lomborg was even a member of Greenpeace. He became a sceptic of environmental dogma only as a result of his research results, and only reluctantly.

 

And as I pointed out, I did not take his word. I did not reject his findings - just treated them as tentatively possible, and did further reading, which confirmed that Lomborg was mostly right.

 

I strongly doubt he is right, and I also doubt his motives. At the end of the day it's up to you though. I see this as the inevitable backlash to the green movement being proven correct after all these years. I am sure in 50 years time there will still be people saying GW has nothing to do with humans, just as there are still billions of people who reject natural selection...

 

Anyway, try this link for size:

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

______________

[Dak]

PS to pangloss: you must have seen me arguing in the mods room to let creationists back because i think they stimulate discussion and add a diversity of oppinion to the site, even if their oppinion is stupid.

 

i have nothing against people who don't accept the scientific/standard stance on GW, evolution, or any other matter. all that bugs me is when the refuse to 'argue by the rules', e.g. refuse to offer citations, use logical fallicies, repeat arguments ad nausium, ignore critisizm, cherry-pick, etc etc etc.

 

so yeah, it's not that i'm trying to 'daemonize' SL (or anyone else) for not having a 'politically corect oppinion' , it's just that i wish he'd stop cherry-picking and ignoring the obvious flaws in his arguments once they're pointed out.

[bombus]

You mean "reek"? Ok, I appreciate the direct answer, and I respect your opinion on it, and I won't even take major disagreement with its accuracy, at least insofar as it pertains to myself. That's beacuse I think ALL of us are influenced by our political opinions, and their influence on this ostensibly (but not really) scientific discussion was manifest before I opened my mouth.

 

But I agree that your data supports your general opinion. If you haven't received enough recognition of that fact, I'll happily address that by saying so. I guess the difference between you and I is that I think that having data support an opinion is not the same as having proof. And neither, apparently, does the IPCC.

 

My only point here has been that skepticism is part of science, not its enemy, and when you guys demonize people like myself and SkepticLance, the religious right just laughs and sits back and relaxes, watching us do their work for them. I just think we can do better than that, that's all.

 

You guys should EMBRACE SkepticLance, not bemoan the fact that his opinion "reeks". Shout his existence on our board from the highest mountaintop. Look at the skeptic we have in our midst, and how we listen to what he has to say! Look at how we answer him point by point, and acknowledge him when he's right, but make it clear when he's wrong! We know he's not Rush Limbaugh, he's something far more useful and important: An INTELLIGENT skeptic on global warming. That's an INCREDIBLY important thing. And look -- Global Warming STILL HOLDS UP! Holy cow!

 

But hey, maybe it's just me.

 

Whilst you have a valid point - scientific theories should always be questioned, there is a danger when ideas are challenged by let us say unreliable evidence.

 

In the UK one lone scientists saw a link between MMR Vaccine and autism. Despite the fact that his research was thoroughly investigated by the best minds around - and flatly rejected, thousands of parents wouldn't let their children have the MMR Vaccine. Measles inevitably increased and the death rate for the disease increased, i.e., kids died as a result of one persons nonsense research.

 

Although over 90% of scientists agree that the current increase in GW is anthropogenic, I'd guess that over 50% of people are still skeptical about it because of idiots like Lomborg and Jeremy Clarkson! This makes it harder to address the issue.

 

To skepticlance:

 

This bursts a numner of GW myths:

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

[SkepticLance]

Dak said :

 

"so yeah, it's not that i'm trying to 'daemonize' SL (or anyone else) for not having a 'politically corect oppinion' , it's just that i wish he'd stop cherry-picking and ignoring the obvious flaws in his arguments once they're pointed out."

 

It amazes me that we still have so much fuss about so little. All this began when iNow, quite wrongly, queried the average warming figures for the past 30 years. I gave two perfectly good references which iNow chose to reject. No one else, except Pangloss, had the integrity to stand up and say : "Hey iNow, stop arguing. Those figures are right."

 

I have not tried to argue that the data was linear, which is an accusation thrown at me rather often - I presume out of desperation, due to having no better argument. I merely said that, if we drew a straight line through the warming figures for the past 30 years, it would approximate a fit quite well. This is true, and does not consitute a claim that all is linear.

 

On the other hand, to look at the very minor changes in warming rate over 30 years, and claim that is statistically meaningful evidence of exponential growth, is a load of crock.

 

My comments about the psychology of group extremism are quite correct, and accurate in terms of what we know of human psychology. The principle applies to scientists as well as anyone else. This is a good reason why data is king. It is a good reason for being sceptical of interpretation. When a scientist like James Hansen comes up with an interpretation that is way out of line with the raw data (5 metre sea level rise in 100 years, versus 3 mm per year, which is what we know is actually happening), then we are right to be very sceptical of his interpretation.

 

bombus said

 

"I'd guess that over 50% of people are still skeptical about it because of idiots like Lomborg and Jeremy Clarkson"

 

As I said numerous times. Don't criticise Lomborg till you read him. You just show your ignorance. Lomborg is not a global warming sceptic. He accepts its reality just as I do. He merely says that we would be better to put those billions of dollars of resources into more important humanitarian projects. You can dispute that idea if you like, but at least dispute with what Lomborg actually says - not just what your prejudice imagines he says.

[Pangloss]

pangloss, this is a science site. for discussing science. at the end of the day, science trumps non-science. no one is obliged to actually have any qualifications in science to post here, but if it can be shown that what you're saying is scientifically unsupported -- and, in fact, science states that the exact opposite is the case -- then do you not think, on a science site, you should actually acknowledge that science may in actual fact be onto something and that you may be wrong.

 

Yes. I think that, on a science site, under those circumstances, one should acknowledge that science may in actual fact be onto something and that you may be wrong. Yes, I do.

 

I also think it's important that, on a science site, one should acknowledge that science may in actual fact be incomplete and require further study, that reasonable objections should be examined and, when not wholly disproven, taken into consideration when plans are made for the future.

 

That has happened here, on both sides, and it's sometimes failed to happen here as well, on both sides.

[iNow]

If we look further back in time, the situation becomes more complex and the cause/effect relationships become more debatable.

 

For example, the period 1941 to 1976 represents a period in which the net result is a 0.2 C cooling as global average. To talk about this period as global warming is literally incorrect, as it was, overall, a period of global cooling.

 

Before that period, things are also much less clear cut than the last 30 years. 1880 to 1910 is another period of global cooling, while 1910 to 1940 saw a global average temperature increase of 0.4 C. Since the CO2 increase for the cooling 30 years is very similar to the CO2 increase for the warming 30 years, the cause and effect relationship is also unclear. What is obvious is that factors other than CO2 increase were having a very potent effect.

 

Thus, I accept the recent warming as being the clear cut case, where anthropogenic greenhouse gases drive global warming. Before that, such claims become moot.

 

No... it is NOT moot. Let me explain why.

 

CO₂ is only ONE forcing factor, and despite relatively high CO₂ during a given epoch, there may be other factors causing the overall temperature trends to go down. Essentially, it's not at all improbable that while atmospheric CO₂ was up other forcing factors were "out weighing" that impact and driving overall temperature trends downward.

 

 

Basically, it's misleading to think along those lines... We hear it all of the time... ("how is it that temperatures went down when CO₂ concentrations went up? how do you explain THAT mister smarty pants scientist person?")... because other factors contribute to temperature change. Just because the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ was high while temperatures decreased does not mean that CO₂ was not still a (or the) primary forcing factor.

 

When viewing this data, and looking at the information, try to recall that temperature change is due to multiple contributions from several different sources. These sources influence the temperature both up and down, depending on the details of that force and it's intensity, all coupled with what else is happening during the time in question. It's the cumulative effect of all of the forces that dictates what temperature does.

 

 

The size of the forcing and the size of the temperature change during a given time period will not, in general, align completely, and this is because of contributions from other factors.

 

This does NOT mean we should ignore that data to suit our purposes, nor limit discussion to a three decade period so we can justify our conclusions about climate trends in the coming century.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

You may be reading into my statements more than I intended. CO2 has been increasing in the Earth's atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and it will have a warming effect on the climate in response to the amount of that increase.

 

However, up until about 1930, that increase was trivial. That is the reason that other factors have dominated global warming/cooling.

 

For example : from 1870 to 1930, the increase was only about 10 ppm in total, or 1.7 ppm per decade. In the next 40 years, it ran at 7.5 ppm per decade. Then reached to over 10 ppm per decade.

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm

 

(Please don't tell me that this reference is not good enough. This data is also accepted by climate scientists and I do not want to go through another trivial argument with you.)

 

To imply that the minor CO2 increases until 1930 could had a significant effect on warming/cooling is not smart.

 

I accept that any increase in CO2 will have a warming effect. However, the early increases were so tiny that they were totally overwhelmed in terms of effect by other factors.

[iNow]

To imply that the minor CO2 increases until 1930 could had a significant effect on warming/cooling is not smart.

Has anyone done that? Not AFAIK...

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

What I am responding to is the suggestion that there is something wrong with me restricting my affirmation of the current greenhouse gas/global warming relationship to the last 30 years.

 

I do this simply because it is the only period where that relationship is clear cut. Some people do not seem to be able to understand that point and still claim CO2 is driving warming, even for periods where the world is cooling, for Finagles sake!

 

You cannot get a clear cut relationship where other factors are so much more potent than CO2 that they drive the whole planet into a cooling period.

 

Even for the time after 1930, the relationship is pretty damn murky. Only from about 1976 onwards does it become clear cut.

 

And the other factors driving warming/cooling are NOT that well understood. As I have said before, sunspot activity is a potent influence on global temperature. Yet no-one actually knows for sure what the mechanism is. So how can we say we understand what is going on when one of the most potent drivers involves a mechanism that we do not understand?

[iNow]

I also think it's important that, on a science site, one should acknowledge that science may in actual fact be incomplete and require further study, that reasonable objections should be examined and, when not wholly disproven, taken into consideration when plans are made for the future.

Isn't this redundant, though? Is this not the absolute default position of science itself?

 

 

It's like you're suggesting that a man at a bar on a Friday night talking to a hot chick and trying to make her laugh and get her to notice all of his positive qualities should have to first tell her that he's seeking a potential social and/or sexual partner and this is the reason he's approached her at all.

 

 

It's understood. It's default. If some stranger to the process does not understand this, then they will if they stick around long enough to see and engage in the beauty of it.

 

 

 

 

 

You cannot get a clear cut relationship where other factors are so much more potent than CO2 that they drive the whole planet into a cooling period.

 

Even for the time after 1930, the relationship is pretty damn murky. Only from about 1976 onwards does it become clear cut.

 

No, friend. The relationship may be more complex across other time frames, but it is still a relationship of major significance to our ultimate understanding of the processes involved in the global climate system. One cannot as fully appreciate a masterpiece painting by only viewing one corner of it's frame.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

re the relationship.

 

CO2 vs warming. From 1976 to the present, this is crystal clear. Before that it is theoretical and mathematical, for the simple reason that other factors are overwhelming the effect of the CO2. Since the other factors cannot truly be quantified, that makes the whole thing murky.

 

A climate scientist may say that, between 1930 and 1940 for example, the CO2 increase creates a certain warming. However, the warming at that time was far greater than the CO2 calculation would predict. Why? Because of the effects of other factors, with in this case, sunspot activity, being paramount. Note that from about 1910 to about 1940, there was a massive increase in sunspot activity. Since the mechanism by which sunspot activity causes warming of the Earth is poorly, if at all, understood, it cannot be calculated. Thus, for that time, things are murky.

[Pangloss]

Isn't this redundant, though? Is this not the absolute default position of science itself?

 

It's understood. It's default. If some stranger to the process does not understand this, then they will if they stick around long enough to see and engage in the beauty of it.

 

Yeah okay, when you pass the Kolinahr lemme know and I'll get out of your way.